Right. I do think it’s okay for you to hint at the “would have” stuff in the storytelling, but I think if you got too preachy about it, something would feel off.
1 Like
I can totally see that. The reader/viewer probably makes those connections for themselves anyway. Thanks for the clarification. 
So, as the first in a trilogy, her personal issues are not resolved as preparation for uncovering a huge conspiracy in the other books. She succeeds in blasting into OS Protection/Gathering Information/Strategy solution, to her own demise. The information she fought for and got in OS is horrible personally MC.
Her personal MC “solution” of Rejection can’t happen because of Preconditions. But probably most significantly, the IC impact (Protection) makes her miss the solution of Rejection. This choice she makes (unweighed Action based on her character) which ends in her MC bad judgment is important because the IC is the trilogy MC. (Don’t shoot me!).
I know those are weird elements, (Rejection, Protection, Repulsion) but as #1 of 3, and as part of the Trilogy storyform, especially w/the premises, this works.
From what I read, the Bad is just how I set it up. The dilemmas.
I’m not sure I want to do that. It’s actually an action she does, to be true to her character (steadfast) and there’s nothing else she could do at that point without changing her character. Saving his life keeps her in her predicament. The “would have” is subtext. (that’s a good little word, isn’t it?)
1 Like
I am no Dramatica expert, but I seem to lean toward Steadfast stories. I constantly have to remind myself that Dramatica focuses on the source of the conflict. Good and Bad are not necessarily moral judgments, but rather judgments of how the story mind finds resolution. Simply ending the conflict may not be good.
I often say that many characters come to the story to learn a lesson. Some come to teach a lesson. Steadfast characters are the teachers. It may help to think of the Steadfast character as the IC for everyone else. If he can force a resolution by holding onto his/her beliefs despite the challenges and the cost that must be paid, then he is personally justified regardless of the overall outcome.
4 Likes
I think this is critical to remember – and something I’ve struggled with. Other paradigms talk about “negative character arcs” which I’ve associated with Dramatica’s Success/Bad.
But The Terminator and The Godfather are both Success/Bad. In the first case, Sarah Connor heads of to “prepare for the storm”. I don’t think that’s really a moral condemnation of her – what else was she supposed to do? She’s definitely not in a good place. But it doesn’t seem like a “negative character arc” to me.
But The Godfather definitely feels like a negative character arc.
2 Likes
You’ll likely drive yourself crazy trying to figure out what the storyform is NOT arguing. Was the Influence Character right all along? Does this mean a Decision would have resulted in Success?
There is no symmetry in a storyform.
You’re looking at a biased and justified point-of-view–not one side of a universal understanding.
Just because someone makes the argument that Trust leads to Success DOES NOT mean they’re making the same argument that Test leads to Failure.
5 Likes
Just want to really put a pin in this, because I feel like it’s important for understanding Dramatica and storyforming better.
The story is what happens in the story. Any thinking or speculation that falls outside of the scope of the story is not the story.
I feel like I’ve heard Chris Huntley and others say it a million times. I should probably get it tattooed somewhere.
4 Likes
Jim, do you mean that a Judgment of Bad means the MC was not justified in their approach? If they succeed, in my case uncovering a mystery, and it was costly, bittersweet, but they are glad they succeeded, but are so sad about the cost, isn’t that judgment Bad? Good for the goal, bad for the MC?
Personally “justified” but costly does not seem like a Triumph. It seems like Personal tragedy. I believe it’s how we spin the ending that determines this.
Case in point, Gone with the Wind. Her statement at the end “tomorrow is another day” gives a bit of hope for a bad ending. Bittersweet, personal tragedy, but still she feels justified that she did the right thing. (We may debate that).
However, I can see it the other way. We, as the audience, see Scarlett as being a tragic antagonist to herself. By not changing, but standing her ground, she lost in the RS. Her goal was wrong. It should have been to love people rather than herself. (I don’t see Gone With the Wind in Dramatica or in an Analysis. Maybe it’s not an example of anything further than personal tragedy.)
I think Jim is saying the storyform is a biased and justified point of view. It’s the argument you’re making as a storyteller.
The bad judgement is you as an author making a point about how the MC ended up at the end of the story.
So, turning it back. Do you think the MC is in a bad place at the end of the story and can you illustrate how so?
3 Likes
Just to add to @glennbecker 's points, for a Judgment of Bad you should look for the MC and others left with angst, bitterness, regret, unresolved personal issues. They are not in a good place at the end of the story.
Dramatica has another story point, the Story Cost, which covers the sacrifices on the way to meeting the Goal. Some stories have a very high Cost (Braveheart is a good example), which can make the Success/Good ending feel more bittersweet.
Characters can end up sad (about Costs or other things) without being in a “bad place”, i.e. without having a Judgment of Bad.
1 Like
I could be wrong, but if I understand it properly, I think Jim is not using the term ‘justified’ in a way that means the character was right or being reasonable in the actions they chose, but rather to refer to the process of winding up the storyform from the no-conflict, mind-at-ease Dramatica Table of Story Elements view to a storyform full of conflict that needs to be addressed view.
For instance-to steal a half remembered example from an article by Phillips-imagine a waiter with a handful of plates and an itchy nose. The waiter could deal with the itch (Universe) or decide they don’t mind the itchy nose (Mind) and go on. As soon as the waiter decides to scratch their nose, they’ve committed the first level of justification (out of, naturally, four levels) and the DTSE within the waiters mind has now twisted up a little. But now they have to figure out what to do with the plates they’re holding. And that becomes the second level of justification. And so on, and so on.
So a fully justified view, i take it, is one where the Storymind has decided that the conflict comes from one area (or one of the 32000+ storyforms) rather than another, and has essentially decided on a path to address the conflict.
3 Likes
Teacher and Learner – very helpful way of saying it!
Learning Heroes vs. Teaching Heroes - just be careful, not all “teachers” are teaching something good (think Leonard in Memento :))
1 Like
This might need to split off into a new thread, but I had the chance to see Jurassic Park in the theater today. Hadn’t seen it since I was a kid. I remembered the ending feeling like a triumph, but when I watched it today it really felt like a personal triumph.
The whole story starts with the worker being killed, setting up a lawsuit that is scaring off the investors. Hammond has to get experts to sign off on the park, and clearly is the protagonist. Ian Malcolm is the most antagonist-like in the Dramatica since. At the end, the experts aren’t convinced and Hammond concedes the park should not be opened. There’s a shot showing him sadly looking out on his creation before the escape via helicopter.
All this to say, going back to article linked in the OP, that since Grant seems to be a change character and the OS ends in failure, wouldn’t he actually represent the OS solution element. Making the OS problem Chaos fixes this and makes that deux ex machina seem a little less cheesy.
LOL. The Steadfast character may believe he has the answer to the story problem, but if it is a Steadfast, Fail story, then the lesson he is teaching is how not to solve it. 
This made me think of: https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-it-could-be-that-the-purpose-of-your-life-is-only-to-serve-as-a-warning-to-others-ashleigh-brilliant-38-49-52.jpg
Scarlett O’Hara at the end of Gone with the Wind. Is that Personal Tragedy? The title even implies it. She has her farm, she has survived, she got Ashley but lost Rhett. Success Bad?
In my opinion, it was a necessary BAD end. But the MC seems to suspect that the necessity itself was for good. She’s in a worse place, but she made the right decisions. How would I shift my storyform? This difference affects sequence of events, the benchmarks, catalyst, requirements. Even the premise. “Everyone wins when…” isn’t what happens. “Though tragic for the individual…” That’s what it is.
The “making the right decisions” is the second half of the premise.
Is the Judgment connected to the Resolve?
In which case, I say, MC–sorry to spoil your grief, but this was good. You’ll see.
This line makes me wonder whether this is the first story of a series, and if it is, whether the judgement is Good in the context of the series, but Bad in the context of the first story alone.
That is, if there were never to be more added to this story, would the Judgement be Bad? I’m sorry if this brings up more questions, but it’s related to one of my own regarding a similar situation I might be in with my own story and series.
Sorry, I didn’t meant to suggest you definitely had the Judgment wrong, just wanted to make sure you understood Judgment. Based on what you’re saying, I would guess the Judgment for this book in the series is indeed Bad.
For example, I’d say Sarah Connor in The Terminator generally made the right decisions. It’s not her fault that she was left alone and lonely, personally. It’s just what happened when she changed her perspective and did her utmost to survive.
1 Like
It is, indeed.
So if @jhull says [quote=“didomachiatto, post:23, topic:2642”]
100% yes this. That’s why it’s STORY Judgment, not MC Judgment.
[/quote] …HOW would you recommend differentiating the Story judgment from the MC judgment, when the MC represents the audience? Only by the MC’s emotional state of not being devastated?
Hello all, I stumbled upon this thread as I had the exact same question as the OP. Many thanks for the helpful posts in reply.
I think @mlucas point regarding Braveheart illustrates the concept of Story Judgement for me best. The steadfast MC is tortured and killed at the end of the story, yet the epilogue leaves the audience with a Good feeling since his death (which directly results from his steadfastness) inspires followers and thus has purpose and meaning, etc. If the film had of immediately concluded after MC has his head chopped off, it seems to me the Story Judgement would be, rather, Bad. This, of course, is all from the writer’s perspective, and in that respect it reminds me a lot about investing.
A lot of financial products are sold using evidence that has been cherry picked by choosing time intervals that benefit the product being sold. Often if you adjust the time interval the evidence will tell a different story. Perhaps it is not so different with Story Judgement. The inspiring love story involving personal sacrifice would probably leave the audience in a different state if it included a few more years and the doldrums of marriage, frustrations of parenting, and eventual divorce! 